M. KATJU AND S. K. SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for writ of certiorari to quash the Impugned circular dated 30. 5. 1997 to the extent of revision of pay scale of Assistant Engineers/ Assistant Officers in the service of respondent No. 1 and for a mandamus directing the respondent to revise the pay scale of members of the petitioner association from their existing pay scale of Rs. 2,000-100-3,600 to the pay scale of Rs. 3,500-150-6,200 as sanctioned by the Government on 19. 7. 1995 and as approved by the Government of India on 24. 4. 1997. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is an Association representing its members -who are employees of the respondent No. 1 Triveni Structurals Ltd. , Allahabad. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it is alleged that the last revision of pay scale and facilities of the Executives of Triveni Structurals Ltd. as also of other Public Sector Undertakings of Government of India was done with effect from 1. 1. 1987 and a circular for revision of pay scale was issued by respondent No. 1 on 23. 8. 1991 vide Annexure-1 to the petition. This revision of pay scale of Central Government Public Sector undertakings are done in accordance with the directions issued by the respective administrative ministries of the Government of India and in the case of Triveni Structurals Ltd. , by the department of Public Enterprises under the Ministry of Heavy Industries. It is alleged that the next revision of pay scale of the Executives of respondent No. 1 was done on 1. 1. 1992. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition that the Department of Public Enterprises vide Office memorandum dated 19.-7. 1995 issued guidelines for the revision of pay scale of Executives holding posts below Board level and non-unionized supervisors with effect from 1. 1. 1992 and sent guidelines by framing scales of different categories. It is further alleged that looking into the resentment among the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings due to variation of pay scales in different undertakings, a guidelines was issued that various scales of the same cadre in the different organisations should be merged together to frame one scale only. And in this way pay scale of Rs. 2,000-100-3,600, which was effective from 1. 1. And in this way pay scale of Rs. 2,000-100-3,600, which was effective from 1. 1. 1987, has been revised to Rs. 3,500-150-6,200 with effect from 1. 1. 1992. True copy of the office Memorandum dated 19. 7. 1995 is Annexure-2. ( 4 ) IN paragraph 9 of the petition, it is mentioned that after prolonged discussion and spade work, the Government of India vide its letter dated 24. 4. 1997 approved the revised pay scale of employees of respondent No. 1 on the model pay scales sanctioned vide office memorandum dated 19. 7. 1995. A true copy of the letter of the Government of India dated 24. 4. 1997, is annexure-3. In paragraph 10, it is mentioned that respondent No. 1 vide circular dated 30. 5. 1997 revised the pay scale of executives below Board level and non-unionized supervisors and adopted the pay scales as approved and sanctioned by the Government in the office memorandum dated 19. 7. 1995 except the pay scale of Assistant Engineers/ Assistant Officers. A true copy of the circular letter dated 30. 5. 1997 is Annexure-4 to the petition. Aggrieved by this circular the petitioner filed a representation dated 8. 6. 1997 to the Chief General Manager of respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-5 to the petition. The chief General Manager sent a reply dated 14. 6. 1997 stating that the Assistant Engineers/ Assistant Officers of respondent No. 1 have been given the higher pay scale of Supervisors. A true copy of letter dated 14. 6. 1997 is Annexure-6 to the petition. Thereafter the petitioner sent another letter dated 17. 6. 1997 and reminders to the chief General Manager, true copies of which are Annexures-7, 8 and 9 to the petition. The respondent No. 5 sent a reply stating that he has nothing to add to the reply dated 14. 6. 1997, true copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed in this court. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the pay scale of non-unionized supervisors and executives are not common in all public Sector Undertakings and variations exist due to particular circumstances in different enterprises. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed in this court. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the pay scale of non-unionized supervisors and executives are not common in all public Sector Undertakings and variations exist due to particular circumstances in different enterprises. As such, each Public Sector Enterprise is given flexibility to formulate and adopt the pay scale on the basis of guidelines and parameters issued by the Department of Public enterprises depending on their requirement. The Bureau of Public Enterprises, Ministry of industries vide letter dated 4. 4. 1990 copy of which is Annexure-C. A.-1 Issued guidelines for revision of pay scales of Executives and non-unionized Supervisors with a clear cut suggestion that revision of scale of pay should be framed by each Public Enterprise having regard to their existing pay structure. This revision was effective from 1. 1. 1987. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned that the respondent No. 1 is a subsidiary company of Bharat Yantra nigam Limited, which has also several other subsidiary companies. All the six subsidiary companies of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited had different pay scales for different categories of non-unionized supervisors before 1987, details of which are given in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit. The pay scale was approved by the Ministry of Industry vide letter dated 29. 5. 1991 Annexure-C. A. 2 to the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) IN paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that in case of respondent No. 1, the designation of different categories of supervisors were different before the revision. Category (1)of supervisor was designated as Assistant Officer/ Assistant Engineer, category (II) supervisor was designated Supervisor-I and category (III) supervisor was designated as Supervisor III. The respondent company did not change the designation of supervisors after the revision of 1987. Any interference with regard to pay revision will affect the other subsidiary companies of Bharat yantra Nigam Limited. ( 8 ) IN paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that designation of non-unionized supervisors as Assistant Officers/ Assistant Engineers will not entitle them to claim the pay scale applicable to executive category. The supervisors are doing the work of supervisor and in some cases the persons doing simple typist work are designated as Assistant Officer. ( 8 ) IN paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that designation of non-unionized supervisors as Assistant Officers/ Assistant Engineers will not entitle them to claim the pay scale applicable to executive category. The supervisors are doing the work of supervisor and in some cases the persons doing simple typist work are designated as Assistant Officer. The petitioners members are also supervisors who have been designated as Assistant Officers but are doing typing/clerical work and other officers are doing supervisory work. The Assistant Engineers who have been promoted from supervisor-I are doing the work of supervisors. A list in this regard is annexure-C. A.-III to the counter-affidavit. ( 9 ) IN paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Government guidelines on pay revision dated 19. 7. 1995 was only in the form of guidelines, and the company was given flexibility in the matter for adopting model scales according to the requirements. The illustrations given in the Government guidelines dated 19. 7. 1995 in Annexure-1 to the writ petition were not mandatory and it was left to the discretion of the company to adopt the pay scale as per their requirements. In paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that by notification dated 19. 7. 1995, it was provided that the Government was not provided budgetary support for meeting the enhanced liability of the company to bear the burden of pay revision, and pay revision is not automatic and flexibility has been given to each Public Sector Undertaking to adopt their pay scales depending on their requirements. ( 10 ) IN paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the company has been referred to b. I. F. R. In paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Assistant Officers/ Assistant engineers are doing supervisory work and hence they can be rightly put in the category of supervisors. In paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that the Assistant Officers/ assistant Engineers were in the highest supervisory grade in the previous pay revision and in the present pay revision also. ( 11 ) ON the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. As pointed out in the counter-affidavit, it is for the respondent No. 1 to fix the pay scale of the different categories of the supervisory employees. ( 11 ) ON the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. As pointed out in the counter-affidavit, it is for the respondent No. 1 to fix the pay scale of the different categories of the supervisory employees. The members of the petitioner association are supervisors though designated as Assistant Officers/ Assistant Engineers. Hence, in our opinion, they cannot get the pay scale of executive cadre. Such employees are already getting the highest grade in the supervisor cadre and it is not for this Court to grant them the pay scale of executive cadre. ( 12 ) THIS Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and it can only interfere if there is some error of law. We do not find any error of law or violation of law in this case. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in D. T. C. Workers Union v. Delhi Transport Corporation, JT 1991 (2) SC 49, and has urged that revision of pay scale should be done strictly in terms of the order of the Central Government/ Pay commission. In our opinion, this decision is clearly distinguishable. In the present, the government guidelines dated 19. 7. 1995, were only in the nature of broad guidelines, and each particular public sector undertaking was given flexibility in fixing pay scales according to its requirements, which includes its financial capacity. ( 14 ) MOREOVER, the respondent No. 1 is a distinct legal entity which is separate from the government. The Government can no doubt issue some guidelines to Pubic Sector undertakings, but these have no binding force. Each such undertaking has its own problems and requirements and hence must be given flexibility in such matters. The respondent No. 1 has been referred to the B. I. F. R. and hence obviously is in poor financial condition. Hence, further financial liability should not be saddled on to It. ( 15 ) THE petition is, therefore, dismissed. .